Information about the attendance of an employee for a particular period was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: the employee had made a false statement in a judicial proceeding, hence information was needed to set the record right - CIC: provide information
3 Mar, 2014O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 4-5-2011 seeking information about the attendance of an employee from 1-10-2010 to 30-4-2011.
2. The CPIO responded on 762011, denying information to the appellant under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act on ground of personal information. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 25-6-2011. The FAA did not respond. The appellant approached the Commission on 11-10-2011 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. I heard the appellant through videoconferencing. The respondent was present during the hearing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 4-5-2011 and stated that he is seeking information about a certain employee in the respondent organization. The appellant further stated that he wants to know about the attendance of the employee from 1-10-2010 to 30-4-2011 The appellant stated that the employee of the respondent organization has done a crime in the district by taking possession of the land. The appellant said that the case is pending in the court.
5. The respondent referred to the response of CPIO of 7-6-2011 in which the information had been denied under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act on ground of being personal in nature. The respondent further stated that the appellant had not preferred the appeal to the FAA but directly approached the Commission which is against the RTI Act.
6. In view of the above and in my opinion, it is pertinent that the information sought by the appellant about the attendance of a certain employee from 1-10-2010 to 30-4-2011 must be provided without any loss of time.
7. What emerged from the hearing is that the appellant needed the information in connection with a court matter. The appellant had said that the employee, about whom the information was being sought, had made a false statement in a judicial proceeding, hence the record had to be set right which could be done if the information was provided. The respondent must be provided the information.
Decision:
8. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in the RTI application. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Shravan Kr. Singh v. Indian Council for Cultural Relations in Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002402/VS/05947